ML20028G191

Requests Deferral of ASLB Ruling on Admissibility of Halapatz Contention for at Least 1 Wk,To Permit Possible Final Resolution of Issue.Util Commitment Re Insp Encl. Certificate of Svc Encl

ML20028G191
Person / Time
Site:	Shoreham File:Long Island Lighting Company icon.png
Issue date:	01/28/1983
From:	Irwin D HUNTON & WILLIAMS, LONG ISLAND LIGHTING CO.
To:
References
ISSUANCES-OL, NUDOCS 8302070501
Download: ML20028G191 (6)

Text

~

LILCO, Janunty 28, 1983 I

CCEETEn

~

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY CO,MMISSION 83 EB -4 E 28 Before the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board o;

_.('

In the Matter )

)

LONG ISLAND LIGHTING COMPANY ) Docket No. 50-322 (OL)

)

(Shoreham Nuclear Power Station, )

)

Unit 1)

LILCO'S RESPONSE TO SC STATEMENT CONCERNING "HALAPATZ CONCERN" On January 21, 1983', Suffolk County filed a " Statement of Suffolk County Concerning Sensitization of Reactor Internals Materials Issue -- Balapatz Concern" (hereinafter, "SC Statement") arguing that the subject matter of a Differing Professional Opinion by Joseph Halapatz, a member of the NRC Regulatory Staff, either fit within the scope of the County's original Contention 24 -- Materials Selection and Cracking, or constituted good cause for the filing of a new contention. The general subject matter of the "Halapatz Concern" is the potential for Intergranular Stcess Corrosion Cracking (IGSCC) of reactor internals.

As the SC statement hecognizes, the "Halapatz Ccncern" was resolved on a professional level in December 1982, and a

' memorandum dated December 28, 1982, between Richard H. Vollmer While, as the and Mr. Balapatz memorialized that resolution.

SC Statement observes, the implementation of that resolution is 8302070501 830128 PDR ADOCK 05000322 PDR

&b0h

. still being worked out, there is no doubt that Mr. Halapatz's concern has been resolved on the following general terms:

(1)

Use of techniques for detection of IGSCC employed in the In-Service Inspection program used at the Monticello nuclear station, and (2) Use of a scope of equipment to be inspected comparable to that listed in the PSAR for the Perry nuclear station.

The SC Statement indicates, at page 4, that a commit-ment by LILCO to implement such a program, combined with monitoring of LILCO's implementation of it through the I&E LILCO does not agree branch, would resolve its concerns.1/

is properly within the scope of that the "Halapatz Concern" fa Contention 24 or that it affords good cause for the filing o However, this Response will indicate LILCO's new contention. ~

h willingness to add this component of inspection to the Shore am and In-Service Inspection program, currently under development, i

to have NRR and the I&E Branch review it as part of the r LILCO thus normal functions with respect to the ISI program.

believes that there will be no need to litigate the "Halapatz Concern" issue.

LILCO's basic commitment with respect to a Monticello-type inspection technique using a Perry-type scope i

of equipment to be inspected is attached hereto, and is ent -

The detailed tied "LILCO Commitment Re IGSCC Inspection".

the correct 1/ The SC statement refers to the Perry FSAR;as noted in the reference, Vollmer and Mr. Halapatz, is the Perry PSAR.

l l

adaptation of this commitment to the circumstances of Shoreham c and its incorporation into the Shoreham ISI program will take several months. However, LILCO believes that this commitment, together with the Staff's intent to review it and its imple-mentation as part of the normal functioning of its NRR and I&E branches, effectively resolves the "Halapatz Concern" issue.

LILCO will be telecopying to the County a proposed draft reso-lution agreement on this matter over the weekend.

LILCO is authorized by the Staff to state the Staff's concurrence in the attached commitment.

Accordingly, LILCO requests the Board to defer ruling {

on the admissibility of the "Halapatz Concern" contention for at least a week, in order to permit likely final resolution of {

a mattor which may never need even to be identified for liti-gation.

Respectfully submitted, l l Donald P. Irwin One of Counsel for Long Island Lighting Company l

l l Hunton & Williams P. O. Box 1535 Richmond, Virginia 23212 j

DATED: January 28, 1983 1

Attachment:

"LILCO Commitment Re IGSCC Inspection" l l

Janunty 28, 1983 l

LILCO COMMITMENT RE IGSCC INSPECTION Accessible areas, with particular attention to welds, will be inspected by a visual technique that would disclose the presence of cracks, should they occur, that could compromise the integrity of the component.

A combination of effective lighting and good optical resolution will be used. The visual examinations of the acces-sible weld areas will be performed utilizing remote underwater TV cameras capable of resolving 0.001 inch diameter wire against contrasting background; the results will be videotaped The tapes will be reviewed i and monitored on a remote monitor.

prior to completion of the outage. Resolution will be verified at the start and end of each videotape. This type of inspec-tion is consistent with the type of inspection identified in the Monticello program.

With respect to other aspects of the Shoreham ISI Program for RPV internals, such as components to be examined and frequency of examination, LILCO will develop and implement a program consistent with that characterized in the Monticello program and the program addressed in Section 5.2.3.2.1.3 of the i

l Perry PSAR. l

. 1

~

LILCO, Jcnuary 28, 1983 C: w :.

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

'83 FES -4 gg;gg In the Matter of .

LONG ISLAND LIGHTING COMPANY j . 5 3pp g~

(Shoreham Nuclear Power Station, Unit 1)l C- - M;cH Docket No. 50-322 (OL)

I hereby certify that copies of LILCO's Response to SC Statement Concerning "Halapatz Concern" were served this date upon the following by first-class mail, postage prepaid, by or by hand (as Federal Express _(as indicated by an asterisk), ,

indicated by two asterisks) on January 28, 1983.

Lawrence Brenner, Esq.** Secretary of the Commission U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Administrative Judge Commission Atomic Safety and Licensing Washington, D.C. 20555 Board Panel U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Atomic Safety and Licensing Commission Appeal Board Panel Washington, D.C. 20555 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission

- Dr. Peter A. Morris ** Washington, D.C. 20555

Administrative Judge Atomic Safety and Licencing Atomic Safety and Licensing i

Board Panel -

Board Panel U.S. Nuclear Regulatory U S. Nuclear Regulatory i .

o Commission Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 20555 1 .

Washington, D.C.

a Dr. James H. Carpenter ** Daniel F. Brown, Esq.**

Administrative Judge Attorney Atomic Safety and Licensing Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel Board Panel U.S. Nuclear Regulatory U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission '

Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 20555 Washington, D.C.

\

Bernard M. Bordenick, Esq.* David J. Gilmartin, Esq.

David A. Repka, Esq. Attn: Patricia A. Dempsey, Esq.

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory County Attorney Commission Suffolk County Department of Law Washington, D.C. 20555 Veterans Merarial Highway Hauppauge, New York 11787 Herbert H. Brown, Esq.** Stephen B. Latham, Esq.*

Lawrence Coe Lanpher, Esq. Twomey, Latham & Shea Karla J. Letsche, Esq. 33 West Second Street Kirkpatrick, Lockhart, Hill, P. O. Box 398 Christopher & Phillips Riverhead, New York 11901 8th Floor 1900 M Street, N.W. Ralph Shapiro, Esq.

Washington, D.C. 20036 Cammer and Shapiro, P.C.

9 East 40th Street Mr. Marc W. Goldsmith New York, New York 10016 Energy Research Group 4001 Totten Pond Road Howard L. Blau, Esq.

Waltham, Massachusetts 02154 217 Newbridge Road Hicksville, New York 11801 MHB Technical Associates 1723 Hamilton Avenue Matthew J. Kelly, Esq.

Suite K State of New York San Jose, California 95125 Department of Public Service Three Empire State Plaza Mr. Jay Dunkleberger Albany, New York 12223 New York State Energy Office Agency Building 2 Empire State Plaza Albany, New York 12223 f I i

.- Q Donald P. Irwin Hitnton & Williams

) 707 East Main Street P.O. Box 1535 Richmond, Virginia *23212 .

DATED: January 28, 1983 l 1

l l